Wind tops US sources of new electricity generation in 2012

42 percent of all new generating capacity came in the form of wind turbines.

Wind energy was the single largest source of new electricity generation capacity in the US during 2012, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). With 13,124 MW of new infrastructure, wind accounted for 42 percent of all new capacity, from renewable sources or otherwise, according to a press release put out by the organization.

The new growth takes America’s total installed wind capacity to 60,007 MW. This is sufficient, by AWEA’s estimation, to meet the electricity needs of 15 million homes. The US remains second to China, which had 62,000 MW of installed wind power at the close of 2011.

Though a bumper year, the rate of expansion is susceptible to the prevailing winds in Washington, DC. The fourth quarter of 2012 was the US wind industry’s strongest ever, seeing an additional 8,380 MW of capacity. But this has been attributed to the expectations that the Production Tax Credit (PTC) would expire on December 31, 2012. The PTC provides a tax credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour of electrical energy generated from a renewable source during its first decade in operation. As part of a last-minute budget deal, Congress extended the credit for another year, so the boom in new projects may continue.

With 1,826 MW, Texas installed more wind capacity than any other state in 2012; it was followed by California (1,656 MW), Kansas (1,440 MW), and Oklahoma (1,127 MW). Illinois, Iowa, Oregon, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Colorado round out the top 10 states, each installing between approximately 500 and 1,000 MW.

Currently, all of America’s wind power is located on land. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates there's the potential for almost 11 million megawatts of land-based wind power, capable of generating an estimated 38.5 billion megawatt-hours of electricity per year (about 10 times 2010 consumption).

"The new growth takes America’s total installed wind capacity to 60,007 MW"Is this a theoretical figure or actually what the installed capacity is capable of generating? Also any idea what the average amount of energy generated is?

I ask because these are the kinds of figures useful to counter arguments from the fossil fuels lobby that renewable energy is unreliable or a waste of money. (Personally I think we'll still always have to back them up with some nuclear power even if it's undesirable - at least until fusion power if that ever happens...)

That would be the real deal, I lived in an area where these wind farms were popular and met many people who lived underneath them. They do get paid well when turbines are installed on their land but that didn't seem to make people forget about the annoying noise and shadows, as well as the loss of production of the land they were built on and the transmission infrastructure.

Pretty impressive, considering that's the equivalent of around 10 new nuclear plants.

I would take capacity factor into account when comparing these designs, since the difference is quite large between nuclear (roughly 90%) and wind (anywhere between 25% and 50% depending on who you ask).

"The new growth takes America’s total installed wind capacity to 60,007 MW"Is this a theoretical figure or actually what the installed capacity is capable of generating? Also any idea what the average amount of energy generated is?

I ask because these are the kinds of figures useful to counter arguments from the fossil fuels lobby that renewable energy is unreliable or a waste of money. (Personally I think we'll still always have to back them up with some nuclear power even if it's undesirable - at least until fusion power if that ever happens...)

Good point - I know there are several wind farms in PA that were installed but aren't in use for one reason or another.

As much as I want to see us move completely to renewables, with natural gas where it's impractical, we have to address externalities. Many communities, already among the poorest in the country, would be devastated in the medium run when they can't do anything else (in the long run not destroying mountains and less pollution may benefit them).

Wind in addition to generating noise, kills birds. We need to look for good locations that minimize consequences.

The bird kill thing is heavily overblown at this point. Early designs with poor placement could cause measurable problems, but modern towers properly sited are almost entirely benign.

I am unclear what you're trying to say about externalities. One of the great benefits of renewable power is generally limited externalities. There are of course the same ones that are built into our whole economy (steel production releases vast amounts of CO2, which is not accounted for in any cost). However, this isn't an issue peculiar to wind. Why would a community be 'devastated' by the introduction of wind power? Sure, if it happens to be one who's living is made on fossil fuels, but in principle even MORE will be gained in other parts of the economy. Surely change happens and there are always winners and losers. It seems to me there's no point in avoiding a policy simply because you want to choose who gets to win or lose. As a society the focus needs to be strategic.

As much as I want to see us move completely to renewables, with natural gas where it's impractical, we have to address externalities. Many communities, already among the poorest in the country, would be devastated in the medium run when they can't do anything else (in the long run not destroying mountains and less pollution may benefit them).

Wind in addition to generating noise, kills birds. We need to look for good locations that minimize consequences.

This isn't directly addressed at you, but your post seems to encapsulate a risk aversion far too common these days.

Toxic slurry from coal plants kill ecosystems and poison drinking water, mountain topping destroys entire areas, oil spills destroy oceans and burning oil causes the planet to heat up and creates smog, water power causes habitat destruction/change, nuclear power is dangerous for generations. Take your pick of dangers, there's no such thing as something for nothing. Airplanes suck in birds all the time yet there's no call to consider flight paths of planes to avoid birds, cars hit deer and other wild animals every day causing animal and human fatalities, yet there's minimal impetus to address these with animal safe over/underpasses.

There are numerous studies done on the impact of these wind farms on the environment and the net affect is minimal. We can make excuses about why we don't want to move quicker from fossil fuels, but that's just what it is, excuses. We didn't create the mess we're in by ourselves, and as a country we've done a lot to mitigate our impact, but it's not enough. As a culture, we're almost completely devoid of the concept of short term pain for long term gain and we need to get back to that.

I truly believe that Americans possess a singular opportunity to deliver a global impact that could be a win win situation for all. This issue isn't about us, it's about our legacy.

That would be the real deal, I lived in an area where these wind farms were popular and met many people who lived underneath them. They do get paid well when turbines are installed on their land but that didn't seem to make people forget about the annoying noise and shadows, as well as the loss of production of the land they were built on and the transmission infrastructure.

As much as I want to see us move completely to renewables, with natural gas where it's impractical, we have to address externalities. Many communities, already among the poorest in the country, would be devastated in the medium run when they can't do anything else (in the long run not destroying mountains and less pollution may benefit them).

Wind in addition to generating noise, kills birds. We need to look for good locations that minimize consequences.

The negative externalities for wind seem much, much cheaper than the negative externalities for other methods of power.Fossil Fuels have climate change and smog. As well as significant removal problems.Wind has some bird death and noise.Fission has waste and the possibility of a meltdown.Hydroelectric can destroy spawning grounds and productive land.Solar requires large areas of land and is relatively inefficient (for now).Most forms of batteries involve nasty chemicals that hurt local environments when they are mined and disposed improperly.

We need to accept that any form of power generation will have significant trade-offs, and focus on maximizing the benefits while minimizing the negative externalities instead of focusing on the negatives. There's no such thing as a free-lunch.

That would be the real deal, I lived in an area where these wind farms were popular and met many people who lived underneath them. They do get paid well when turbines are installed on their land but that didn't seem to make people forget about the annoying noise and shadows, as well as the loss of production of the land they were built on and the transmission infrastructure.

I actually worked a little on Cape Wind and it's a pretty interesting project. The entitled NIMBY attitude to projects like Cape Wind are really unfortunate. It's not that all NIMBY arguments are without merit but it definitely is in the case of Cape Wind. The arguments against the project always seemed like those opposing were grasping at straws to me.

Wind projects always hit the same road blocks no matter how tired and debunked some of the arguments are. ( Birds, anyone?) I wish some of this opposition would show up to proposals for more "conventional" types of energy production.

I strongly recommend "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air", by David MacKay (www.withouthotair.com). He suggests using kiloWatt-hours per day per person to get the big numbers into a human scale. This is vital, otherwise the big numbers just wash right over us (OK, they wash right over me).

He also reckoned (in 2008) that the average American uses about 250 kWh per day, all told: in electricity, heating, transport, etc.

By my arithmetic 60000 MW installed capacity is 3.6 kWh per day per person. That's 60000 times 1000 (kW not MW); times 24 (kWh per day); divide by 400M (per person).

Divide again by 3 for the load factor (wind not always blowing); something like 0.5% of total requirements. Not a bad start, but there's a long way to go. Lots of jobs for steel workers!

The issue with solar on rooftops is the small size of the installations leads to a lot of overhead. Subdivisions or blocks need to be done one at a time. If you could get all the houses on a street to sign up (probably with a rental system a la SolarCity), then you start to bring down installation costs, which are the majority of the costs for installing solar nowadays - panels are about $1-1.25/W, while overhead and installation is $3-4W.

As much as I want to see us move completely to renewables, with natural gas where it's impractical, we have to address externalities. Many communities, already among the poorest in the country, would be devastated in the medium run when they can't do anything else (in the long run not destroying mountains and less pollution may benefit them).

Wind in addition to generating noise, kills birds. We need to look for good locations that minimize consequences.

Wind kills very few birds. It's not kind to bats though. Both are things that are much more fixable than the problems with coal.

I really, really don't like the talks of "installed capacity", or even worse: translating that number to a "could power X number of homes" claim. According to Wikipedia, the US generated 119,747 GWh of wind power in 2012. By my "back of envelope" calculations, that means an average power generation of 13 GW, so a capacity factor of 20%, nowhere near the 60 GW of installed capacity. The whole installed capacity claim is just hugely misleading.

They should look seriously at combining wind generated electricity with hydrogen for storage and distribution. Excess electricity could be used to split water. The resulting hydrogen could be stored and distributed via pipelines. It could power generators where needed during peak loads. This would reduce transmission losses that come with long distribution lines. Unlike other peak load generators, it would be completely non-polluting, producing only pure water. The oxygen produced by splitting the water would be a profitable byproduct. Its sale could pay for the upkeep of the system. If done on a large enough scale, the hydrogen could replace natural gas for many purposes. The resulting water would be very much in demand.

Such a system could be expanded as needed and would not be subject to the whims and greed of the oil industry.

They should look seriously at combining wind generated electricity with hydrogen for storage and distribution. Excess electricity could be used to split water. The resulting hydrogen could be stored and distributed via pipelines. It could power generators where needed during peak loads. This would reduce transmission losses that come with long distribution lines. Unlike other peak load generators, it would be completely non-polluting, producing only pure water. The oxygen produced by splitting the water would be a profitable byproduct. Its sale could pay for the upkeep of the system. If done on a large enough scale, the hydrogen could replace natural gas for many purposes. The resulting water would be very much in demand.

Such a system could be expanded as needed and would not be subject to the whims and greed of the oil industry.

That is a pretty big dream. Splitting water to make hydrogen and then making electricity from the hydrogen is pretty low efficiency. The typically thought efficient means of storage is gravity storage like in hydro, moving the water above the dam. Or another way is to have dual heaters of gas and electricity to heat homes with the excess energy. But then you have to fit homes with these furnaces. Hydrogen is a very dangerous fuel that has very low energy density, there are many many issues that might not be resolved to effectively use it in a mass market.

The NIMBY crowd can be powerful. I worked on the project putting up first wind turbine in Chicago (at the Field Museum), The main opposition initially came from the birders since Chicago is on a migration route, but even they were convinced by the studies it wouldn't have much of an impact.

Despite the hurdles in getting it up, the NIMBY's managed to have it removed within weeks. The removal decision and act was so fast, no one could believe it. I mean, it's almost as if it were as easy as shutting down an airport in Chicago!

They should look seriously at combining wind generated electricity with hydrogen for storage and distribution. Excess electricity could be used to split water. The resulting hydrogen could be stored and distributed via pipelines. It could power generators where needed during peak loads. This would reduce transmission losses that come with long distribution lines. Unlike other peak load generators, it would be completely non-polluting, producing only pure water. The oxygen produced by splitting the water would be a profitable byproduct. Its sale could pay for the upkeep of the system. If done on a large enough scale, the hydrogen could replace natural gas for many purposes. The resulting water would be very much in demand.

Such a system could be expanded as needed and would not be subject to the whims and greed of the oil industry.

I like this idea for energy storage, but it is doubtful that hydrogen could replace natural gas in very many applications without major reworking of the infrastructure. Its energy density per volume is 3.6 times lower so you'd have to burn -- and move -- 3.6 times the volume to get the same heating effect.

I really, really don't like the talks of "installed capacity", or even worse: translating that number to a "could power X number of homes" claim. According to Wikipedia, the US generated 119,747 GWh of wind power in 2012. By my "back of envelope" calculations, that means an average power generation of 13 GW, so a capacity factor of 20%, nowhere near the 60 GW of installed capacity. The whole installed capacity claim is just hugely misleading.

It also screws up grid operators because it is extremely unpredictable and uneven. Two things that really aren't good if you are trying to deliver stable electric power.

Now, if every one of those towers was pumping water into a holding tank when there's an excess it would help, but that will also greatly reduce efficiency.

"The new growth takes America’s total installed wind capacity to 60,007 MW"Is this a theoretical figure or actually what the installed capacity is capable of generating? Also any idea what the average amount of energy generated is?

I ask because these are the kinds of figures useful to counter arguments from the fossil fuels lobby that renewable energy is unreliable or a waste of money. (Personally I think we'll still always have to back them up with some nuclear power even if it's undesirable - at least until fusion power if that ever happens...)

I think the term capacity is pretty clear. I'm sure they don't mean average, but instead mean maximum it could produce.

"The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that there's the potential for almost 11 million megawatts of land-based wind power, capable of generating an estimated 38.5 billion megawatt-hours of electricity per year (about 10 times 2010 consumption)."

I strongly recommend "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air", by David MacKay (http://www.withouthotair.com). He suggests using kiloWatt-hours per day per person to get the big numbers into a human scale. This is vital, otherwise the big numbers just wash right over us (OK, they wash right over me).

Yep, this is a great book, and available as a softcover, or free as a PDF. It's very physics-based and fair-minded. David Mackay got appointed as the chief scientific advisor of the UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change.

"According to the Atlantic Wind Connection, led by Trans-Elect, the New Jersey line will cost an estimated $1.3 billion and begin construction in 2016.

Many involved in the project are confident that the transmission line will help reduce storm impacts by sourcing offshore energy during blackouts to hospitals and emergency response stations, but some are more skeptical. Todd Schneider, a spokesperson for Jersey Power and Light, told the New York Times that even though power could be sourced from offshore wind during or after a major storm, it may not be able to reach facilities in need due to onshore transmission line disruption – the utility lost 55 of its 75 transmission lines during Hurricane Sandy."

All wind does is force the building of new natural gas plants. Because only they can compensate for the natural variation in wind speed. Getting power only when the wind blows is largely a headache for energy providers which need baseline power and forecasting to correctly predict how much power is needed.

If you look at the actual numbers of deaths and enviromental damage - Nuclear is incredibly safe. We should be exploring that as well because there doesn't seem to be any way to provide baseline power except by burning through our limited natural gas supplies. Its just too high quality a fossil fuel to waste on power generation, IMHO. We should be conserving that for mobile applications that actually need it (say fuel cell cars)..

So are energy independence and reducing the need for fossil fuels. In reality, it's no bigger than the existing electrical grid, the existing natural gas pipeline distribution system, or the interstate highway system, all of which we now take for granted.

Quote:

Splitting water to make hydrogen and then making electricity from the hydrogen is pretty low efficiency.

This isn't as big of a drawback as it sounds, not when the potential energy supply is nearly infinite. If the same amount of money we spent on nuclear power was put into making this more efficient, we'd have made it far better by now.

Quote:

But then you have to fit homes with these furnaces. Hydrogen is a very dangerous fuel that has very low energy density, there are many many issues that might not be resolved to effectively use it in a mass market.

If it wasn't for the addition of hydrogen sulfide, natural gas would have many of the same drawbacks. It wouldn't necessarily have to be used residentially, at least not directly. Burning hydrogen yields steam, which could be used for heating. Some communities still get heat from the steam generated by power plants. Industry would be an ideal place to burn hydrogen in place of natural gas.

IMO, we shouldn't be looking at hydrogen as a fuel in itself, but as an energy storage and transfer medium. Most all sources of energy, renewable or otherwise could be sources for it. Yes, it would require infrastructure changes, but the infrastructure is in bad shape anyway. Either way, it needs both upgrading and repair.

"According to the Atlantic Wind Connection, led by Trans-Elect, the New Jersey line will cost an estimated $1.3 billion and begin construction in 2016.

Many involved in the project are confident that the transmission line will help reduce storm impacts by sourcing offshore energy during blackouts to hospitals and emergency response stations, but some are more skeptical. Todd Schneider, a spokesperson for Jersey Power and Light, told the New York Times that even though power could be sourced from offshore wind during or after a major storm, it may not be able to reach facilities in need due to onshore transmission line disruption – the utility lost 55 of its 75 transmission lines during Hurricane Sandy."

The New Jersey Energy Link isn't the wind farm. It us simply the 189 mile undersea cable that connects the wind farm to the power grid.

The expense of building and maintaining any project is relative. With anything, the various trade-offs have an expense in one way or another. There is a cost, not all of it monetary, to having wind production onshore. Same with offshore. It's a matter of what our priorities are and what the overall goals are. Maybe $1.3 billion is a lot for an electric line. Then again, maybe it's not given the energy potential of where that transmission line is tapping into, the jobs it creates, the type of energy production it supports, etc.

It would be interesting to see what the numbers are for the development and support of offshore oil and gas infrastructure.

I would like to see a lot more houses with solar cells on their roofs. It would be a huge improvement, reduce needed power, mitigate power outages, and decentralize power generation.

I would even be in favor of solar panels being added to new home construction requirements. It would add a little expense, but the increased volume would drive prices down.

The issues with solar cells are as has been mentioned they're relatively inefficient. They require minerals not commonly mined, and therefor expensive, and as with anything there's the carbon trade-off of production. All of that said, we are making VAST advancements in solar that simply haven't been vetted and picked up at a manufacturing level yet.1.University of Waterloo for instance has found a design which by siphoning a small percentage of the gross production of electricity by the panel and circulating it over it's own cells it can use and activate cheaper materials, possibly even materials which would be garnered through recycle programs of other industrial wastes.2.Another advancement (I did not catch the origin) is in solar windows. Where the glass windows (imagine this on a skyscraper) of a building are actually coated with highly-transparent PhotoVoltaic cell material. A quick Google search yields this: http://inhabitat.com/pythagorus-solar-windows-offer-breakthrough-in-solar-tech-for-high-rises/3.Yet another advancement to address common pitfalls of solar are these new "self-healing" solar cells. http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/01/purdue-develops-self-healing-solar-cells/4.And finally the solar spray, for those already installed homes: http://www.gizmag.com/thin-film-turns-windows-into-solar-panels/16058/

So you're right, it would be nice going forward to see more housing projects incorporate solar, but a big part of the issue is that the existing tech isn't efficient, and the new tech to upgrade and replace it hasn't been vetted so no one will back it into mass manufacture. (Frankly a good place to turn those billions of dollars in fossil fuel R&D for a company that is only prolonging it's own demise as the fossil industry crumbles.)

'hate to piss on the party but where did the other 58 percent come from ?

With the current state of science on the matter — since an overwhelming majority of climatologists seem to agee — it should be nothing short of criminal to generate new energy from fossil fuel combustion, shouldn't it ?

So are energy independence and reducing the need for fossil fuels. In reality, it's no bigger than the existing electrical grid, the existing natural gas pipeline distribution system, or the interstate highway system, all of which we now take for granted.

It's not so much the problem with it being possible at a theoretical level. At a practical level. It's like the article says it is possible. Nearly all the useful wind is in the interior of the US and offshore. Far way from generally the population it's to serve. There is a few places where the wind is more constant, great lakes are good and offshore has good constant winds, which is why it is being tried despite costing an insane amount of money for the level of power produced.

Most of the population centres are in poor wind areas. Transmission becomes an issue. The variability makes for a serious buildout many times the capacity. Look at the capacity rating, typically it's about a quarter is what one can get out of it onshore and at a good location. For a 90% uptime would require a over buildout of about 3x-4x, so for the same capacity it would take 12-16X the capacity in good locations. For offshore it is far better it would take about 3-4X as it has strong steady winds.

Quote:

This isn't as big of a drawback as it sounds, not when the potential energy supply is nearly infinite. If the same amount of money we spent on nuclear power was put into making this more efficient, we'd have made it far better by now.

But we haven't put anything into nuclear in a very very long time. From 1978-20012 there were no new approvals for nuclear power, just red tape - and so very little research done. You talk like there is an infinite supply, theoretically sure. If we wanted to push all the money we put into the military towards this it is possible. Then how to manage and plan this in a market economy, the amount of effort to it takes is pretty rough. When compared to nuclear, which is simple, stable, very very safe, uses existing infrastructure...why put in that much resources of the economy to have windmills everywhere and transmission lines everywhere?

Quote:

If it wasn't for the addition of hydrogen sulfide, natural gas would have many of the same drawbacks. It wouldn't necessarily have to be used residentially, at least not directly. Burning hydrogen yields steam, which could be used for heating. Some communities still get heat from the steam generated by power plants. Industry would be an ideal place to burn hydrogen in place of natural gas.

IMO, we shouldn't be looking at hydrogen as a fuel in itself, but as an energy storage and transfer medium. Most all sources of energy, renewable or otherwise could be sources for it. Yes, it would require infrastructure changes, but the infrastructure is in bad shape anyway. Either way, it needs both upgrading and repair.

I'm not talking about the lack of smell to check for leaks. The danger is from very small molecules that are hard to seal against. If one wants to compressing NG can at 200 bars be 600x more dense, vs 3x density at 700 bars for Hydrogen, the level of compression required takes a massive infrastructure with many failsafes which makes it insanely expensive to do in a mass market. To liquify it, or energy density purposes, 10,000 psi (not 5,000 for safety reasons) it is anything but simple. Even in it's liquid form it only has about a third the energy density per litre of NG, and about a third the energy when gaseous, one would have to have an insane volume if one did not want to liquify the hydrogen. Gasoline VS gaseous hydrogen per liter is 2700X less energy. Think of the volumes required.